Minutes of a meeting of the Representation Review Advisory Group held in the Council
Chambers, 10 Gorge Road, Queenstown on Friday, 26 March 2021 beginning at 10.00am
Mr Bruce Robertson (Chair), Mr Clive Geddes, Mr John Glover, Mr Ian Hall, Professor Janine
Haywood (via Zoom) and Ms Viv Millsom
Ms Jane Robertson (Senior Governance Advisor/Electoral Officer)
Mr Dean Whaanga and Mr Naell Crosby-Roe
Revised Timeframe for Representation Review
The Electoral Officer was now managing a by-election for one new Council or in the
Queenstown-Wakatipu Ward and there had been a review of her workload over the
coming months. The result was to push the timeframe for the representation review
out slightly, although the process was still well within the provisions of the Local
Electoral Act. The new timetable was as follows:
1 June 2021
Advisory Group chair to present advisory group
recommendation to full Council (workshop)
4 June 2021
Mayor to present advisory group recommendation to
Wānaka Community Board (workshop)
30 June 2021
Council meeting: resolution adopting initial proposal
5 July 2021 – 6 August 2021 Consultation period
26 August 2021
Hearing of submissions by full Council
16 September 2021
Council meeting: resolution adopting final proposal
Future of Wānaka representation
There was further discussion about whether Wānaka Community Board was needed
to achieve fair representation for the Wānaka Ward. Wānaka Councillors were
elected to represent Wānaka, but they also had a statutory duty to represent the
whole district, and members questioned whether Wānaka would be fairly represented
without the Board. At the previous meeting the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Wānaka
Community Board had described the way in which was the Board was cut out of a
number of full Council matters, with a recent example being discussions about the
future of Wānaka Airport. Board members had spoken about the value of the Board
but also about its inefficiency and lack of Council wil to uphold the principles of the
Governance Protocol Statement which described Board involvement in most decision-
The continuation of the Wānaka Community Board also raised the question of fairness
and whether there should be community boards across the district.
Proposal for Queenstown-Wakatipu Ward
There was further discussion of a new proposal which had been distributed prior to
Wānaka-Hāwea Ward, recognising the two major lakes
to which the communities are connected
West of the Shotover River: Whakatipu Ward, using Lake
Whakatipu as the inspiration
East of the Shotover River: Waiwhakaata Ward, using
Lake Hayes as the naming inspiration; an alternative
which more loops in the Gibbston would be
Waiwhakaata-Kawarau Ward to include the Kawarau
Proposed Ward Arrangement
Population Members Population:
Difference % difference
member ratio from quota from quota
Waiwhakaata-Kawarau Ward 9,432
The meshblock populations for the area east of the Shotover River (including the area of
the Arrowtown Ward) were assessed and together total 9,432. This was subtracted from
the original population total of the ward (22,998), plus the Arrowtown Ward (3,108),
giving 16,674. This would be a compliant model.
• It was noted that the primary reason for splitting the existing Queenstown-Wakatipu
Ward was to achieve population parity with the Wānaka Ward. It was also needed to
avoid having a large single ward electing eight Councillors.
• There was further discussion about whether STV was a better option for this sort of
proposal. Prof Haywood advised that this new proposal would work under STV or FPP.
However, FPP would be a poor proposal if there was one large Queenstown Ward
electing eight Councillors.
• Members considered how the population in the proposed Queenstown Wards could
have better balance. It was suggested that the boundary of Waiwhakaata-Kawarau
Ward be extended to include the communities down the side of the lake which shared
a commonality with each other, including Kingston. It would also include Ladies Mile,
the population of which was likely to grow in the future.
• The preference was for each Ward to elect four Councillors, increasing the present
size of the Council by two.
• Members observed that the proposed model abolished the Arrowtown Ward but gave
greater choice to that population with the option of electing four members rather
than one (especially as the single member was often elected unopposed).
• Members considered the proposed new names. Members agreed that the names
needed to provide a sense of place, be identifiable and understood. Whakatipu east
and west would be confusing. The Remarkables were dominant down the lake edge
so the name ‘Kawarau’ was appropriate. Members supported the proposed three
Te Reo names, noting however that use of these names needed to be checked with
a. Wānaka Community Board
Members discussed whether the Wānaka community had characteristics and
needs and was such a distinct community of interest that it required the additional
layer of representation that the Wānaka Community Board provided. Members
asserted that one of the local concerns was the lack of executive presence in
Wānaka and the fact that the Council’s main office was in Queenstown.
It was noted that the Board had extensive delegations but had limited
effectiveness, largely because the Council and executive did not facilitate its
functioning in accordance with the Governance Protocol Statement.
There was discussion about whether the Board would function better if there were
fewer Councillors appointed as Board members. Members also discussed whether
the Wānaka community would be better represented (and more effective and
accountable) with four Wānaka Ward Councillors and no community board.
Members were also conscious of the political sensitivity of a recommendation to
abolish the board and the climate of dissatisfaction with Council in the Wānaka
community at the moment.
Members agreed that there needed to be appropriate levels of administrative
support if the Wānaka Community Board was abolished. Members noted that
support had improved over the recent year with the appointment of the Upper
Clutha Liaison Manager. The purpose of Wānaka Community Board was to
advocate for the Upper Clutha area and to handle minor local issues, but much of
this was within the duties of the Upper Clutha Liaison Manager.
b. Remuneration Authority
If the proposal resulted in an additional two Council ors, there needed to be
sufficient funding al ocated to the remuneration pool to cover the additional cost.
c. Other decisions
Because it was so contingent on population and the numbers registered on the
Māori Roll, establishing a Maori Roll was not yet a step to take but should be
reviewed at the time of the next representation review (and that this should be in
Local government reform could have a significant impact upon the role of local
government and this should also be a consideration at the time of the next review.
It should also influence the decision to undertake the review within three years.
The Advisory Group would recommend that serious consideration be given to the
introduction of STV the next time the question arose.
d. Next meeting
New model ing needed to be prepared that assessed the population in al
meshblocks across the full area of the existing Queenstown-Wakatipu Ward.
There needed to be discussion with the Au Kaha and Te Ao Marama to confirm
that they were happy with the proposed Te Reo ward names and were
comfortable with the current stance on establishing a Māori Ward.
The meeting concluded at 12.00pm.